Lowyat.NET: Latest topics by icehart85

BERAKING: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion

icehart85 — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 21:50:30 +0800

Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel

In midtown Manhattan on March 4, Google’s managing director for Israel, Barak Regev, was addressing a conference promoting the Israeli tech industry when a member of the audience stood up in protest. “I am a Google Cloud software engineer, and I refuse to build technology that powers genocide, apartheid, or surveillance,” shouted the protester, wearing an orange t-shirt emblazoned with a white Google logo. “No tech for apartheid!”

The Google worker, a 23-year-old software engineer named Eddie Hatfield, was booed by the audience and quickly bundled out of the room, a video of the event shows. After a pause, Regev addressed the act of protest. “One of the privileges of working in a company which represents democratic values is giving space for different opinions,” he told the crowd.

Three days later, Google fired Hatfield.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

sos

Siapa berani boikot Google? Your move puak boikot

#manaboikot #gengboikotmana #boikotjanganxboikot

Double vaccination can interstate already or not?

icehart85 — Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:02:05 +0800

As per topic title, can someone double vaccinated and after 14 days travel interstate?

He predicted global pandemic in 2008

icehart85 — Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:35:22 +0800

[YOUTUBE]pbV2u16zJFE[/YOUTUBE]

Watch first then comment later. kthxbai

Food economics: What if the world went vegan?

icehart85 — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:36:59 +0800

Food economics: What if the world went vegan? - Counting the Cost

[YOUTUBE]NOh445ss1_M[/YOUTUBE]

TLDW version:

QUOTE

A recent report from the Oxford Martin Programme on the future of food estimates that changes in diets could save up to $1,000bn per year on healthcare. If the world went vegan, it could save 8 million lives by 2050 and trillions of dollars.

The report states that simply cutting down meat consumption within accepted guidelines would cut emissions by a third by 2050. A widespread switch to vegetarianism would cut emissions by nearly 63 percent and a similar adoption of veganism would reduce emissions by 70 percent.

It's easy to say "we are what we eat," but is what's healthy for us healthy for the environment too? Are production methods cost-effective or potentially counter-productive in the longterm?

On this special edition of Counting the Cost, we take a look at the economics of food consumption, food security and the future of food.
Dr Marco Springmann, from Oxford University, discusses the future of food, food security, and how changes in food consumption and eating habits could help the environment.

Deer Hunting

icehart85 — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 10:09:28 +0800

If humans are not hunted for food, they will be everywhere

inb4 vegan icehart datang lagi dengan thread bodonya

MAN

icehart85 — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:29:25 +0800

[CENTER]
[YOUTUBE]WfGMYdalClU[/YOUTUBE]
Animation created in Flash and After Effects looking at mans relationship with the natural world.
[/CENTER]

TPPA deal massive win

icehart85 — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:34:41 +0800

The Meat Industry Is Licking Its Chops Over Obama's Massive Trade Deal—By Tom Philpott | Wed Oct. 7, 2015 6:00 AM EDT

FocusLuca/Shutterstock

The US meat industry scored a big victory this week when world leaders hammered out an agreement that would reduce trade barriers across the Pacific: from the United Sates, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile on this side to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, and Singapore on the other.

President Barack Obama has made passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, the signature goal of his second term. Now it goes to Capitol Hill for approval—which it will likely get, given that back in June, Congress granted the president "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals, meaning that it will be considered in up-down, simple-majority votes in both chambers, with no chance of amendment or filibuster.

So how would the TPP affect Big Meat in the United States? The industry is currently facing stagnant domestic demand for its product as Americans eat less meat. The TPP would open markets in countries that currently protect domestic farmers with tariffs. Japan, for example, agreed to slash its tariff on imported beef from 38 percent to 9 percent over the next 15 years—likely making it much easier for American importers to gain a foothold. Because the pact has been negotiated in secret and few details about it have been released, it's impossible to estimate how big of a boost the TPP will provide to US meat purveyors. But it already has industry groups doing the money dance.

In a press release celebrating the TPP, the National Pork Producers Council declared that the trade pact "could increase US pork exports over time exponentially." The National Chicken Council, meanwhile, crowed that the TPP "represents a significant opportunity to expand US chicken exports and bring increased economic benefits to chicken farmers and companies across the country." The United States Cattleman's Association, facing severely declining US beef demand, hailed it in an emailed statement as "welcome news to a domestic industry in need of expanding international market access and reduction of tariffs in the countries included."

Of course, when asked why they're eating less meat, Americans commonly cite a desire to reduce the environmental and social impacts of industrial-scale meat production: everything from animal cruelty to fouled water and air to labor abuses at slaughterhouses and pillaged local economies. An export boom will only intensify those trends.

"We are already seeing the industry posturing in anticipation for the TPP to pass," Kendra Kimbirauskas, an Oregon farmer and CEO of the Socially Responsible Agricultural Project. In Oregon, she adds, "representatives for the industry have spoken about wanting to triple dairy production in the Pacific Northwest to meet Asian demand for powdered milk."

She points to another concern with the deal: the infamous Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause, which would allow corporations within the TPP zone to challenge regulations imposed by member governments in a binding international court. For instance, a company could protest against health and safety regulations if it felt they restricted its business. (Here's a blistering critique of the ISDS clause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.) Two foreign companies—Brazil's JBS and China's Shuanghui—now control nearly half of US pork production. Neither Brazil nor China is in the TPP, but nothing's stopping either from opening a subsidiary in, say, Australia or Japan, and then filing an Investor-State Dispute Settlement suit to stifle some state regulation on factory-scale livestock farming, says Karen Hansen-Kuhn, director of international strategies for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

"The few tools that impacted communities have remaining to protect themselves from CAFO [concentrated animal feeding operations] pollution could be in jeopardy if those regulations are seen as a barrier to trade with the potential to impact corporate profits," Kimbirauskas adds.

Hansen-Kuhn also notes that the US trade representative's summary of the TPP contains this line: The "TPP Parties have also agreed to increased transparency and cooperation on certain activities related to agricultural biotechnology"—another way of saying genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. That's vague language, and the TPP's full criteria for GMOs has not been spelled out. But it certainly appears to place pressure on TPP countries that have opted not to use them, like Japan and Peru.

sos

TLDR version:

Pork, meat and chicken industry doing money dance
Import tariffs for meat will be reduced
Increased powdered milk consumption
Corporations in TPP deal can challenge local government regulations
Pollution and GMOs concerned will be superseded over corporate profits

Even shorter version:

US exporting their SAD diet to TPP countries, but eat less meat themselves.

The Lie We Live

icehart85 — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 09:41:02 +0800

[YOUTUBE]ipe6CMvW0Dg[/YOUTUBE]

Are you ready to change your story? Whats stopping you from doing what you want, bew where you wanna be?

Plants Feel Pain and Vegans are Cruel!

icehart85 — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:24:44 +0800

Plants Feel Pain and Vegans are Cruel!

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

One of the strangest justifications that people have for eating meat is to say, “well plants have feelings, plants feel pain, therefore it’s just as cruel to eat plants as it is to eat meat.”

Humans of course have a seemingly infinite capacity to justify their own cruelty.

Meat is an addiction. I know because I was once an addict. Even now the smell of a roasted chicken makes me feel like a recovered alcoholic walking by an Irish pub.

I’ve heard all the arguments from the excuse that God designed us to eat meat to the lament that they need to eat meat because they tried a vegan diet and their health deteriorated to the most ridiculous justification of all, that being the horrific cruelty that vegans inflict upon innocent plants.

What astounds me is that those who claim that plants feel pain do not hesitate to eat plants, or the animals that eat plants. They hold the position that eating plants is cruel yet they wilfully participate in the infliction of cruelty. This is not difficult to do when you already accept the infliction of cruelty to animals.

First and foremost is the fact that plants, like fungi, microbes and sea sponges do not have nervous systems.

Simple nervous systems evolved in the animals around the time of the jellyfish, which have simple nerve nets but no brains. Later animals developed ganglia, or groups of nerve cells that helped direct signal flow, and these eventually became brains. The process was slow and took tens of millions of years to the point that now most animals now have brains.

Plants do not need a nervous system. They can "communicate" within their body via changes in water pressure and certain compounds like hormones, and can "communicate" with other plants in a limited way with chemicals too. Many animals do the same. Human bodies also use hormones for inter-cellular communication, in addition to nerves. We have the same "endocrine" systems plants use but with different chemicals

Plants do not move. They create organic molecules from solar energy and because they compete for light and soil nutrients, the time requirements and cycles necessary for them to thrive or compete are served by hormones and a unique cellular biology. Nervous systems are very metabolically expensive and unless they provide a competitive advantage, the cost is prohibitive for their emergence.

There is evidence that plants respond to outside stimulation. They respond to music, they respond to heat and cold, to fire and even to damage to their cell structure. This response is not a pain response. A nervous system with a brain is required for the reception of pain. We do know that trees can communicate with each other through chemical signals. For example trees attacked by a virus or a parasite relay information to trees further away that allows for the other trees to produce antibodies to defend themselves.

Plants are remarkable living organisms. The most remarkable thing about them to me is that they literally eat the light from the sun and produce their own sugars. They feed themselves using water, light and nutrients from the soil.

They also form symbiotic relationships with fungus, bacteria and insects. But they do not stop there. Plants are intimately connected to the animal world all the way up to the large mammals like elephants, sloths and humans. We need plants and they need us. What plants need from us most for is assistance with sex and towards that end they work hard to attract animals including us. In other words plants want us to eat them. You won’t find many animals that wish to be eaten.

Flowers and fruit are the two things that plants use to court and attract animals from insects to humans. It’s interesting that humans also use flowers and fruit to court members of the opposite sex. A flower is a signal to a bee to come and have a sweet drink of sugar and in return little packages of pollen are given to the bee to be delivered to other flowers. It all begins with the flower. Flowers have male parts called stamens that produce a sticky powder called pollen. Flowers also have a female part called the pistil. The top of the pistil is called the stigma, and is often sticky. Seeds are made at the base of the pistil, in the ovule.

To be pollinated, pollen must be moved from a stamen to the stigma. When pollen from a plant's stamen is transferred to that same plant's stigma, it is called self-pollination. When pollen from a plant's stamen is transferred to a different plant's stigma, it is called cross-pollination. Cross-pollination produces stronger plants. The plants must be of the same species.

But how does pollen from one plant get moved to another? This is where animals are recruited by the plants to act as the go-between with each other.

When animals such as bees, butterflies, moths, flies, and hummingbirds pollinate plants they are not doing it for nothing. They are not intentionally trying to pollinate the plant. They have no idea that they are being used as a surrogate sex partner by the plant. The plants however know in whatever way a plant can know, just exactly what they are doing. The animal wants food. The plant knows this somehow, certainly not in conscious thought but through a chemical form of communication. When the animal responds to the attraction, which is like a big sign saying “eat here,” the animals come to the plant for a free meal.

It’s not really free of course because the plant has a job for the animal. That job is to take nectar and pollen that is made at the base of the petals. When feeding, the animals rub against the stamens and get pollen stuck all over themselves. When they move to another flower to feed, some of the pollen is transferred to a different plant. Not all plants are cross-pollinated by animals. Many plants are pollinated by the wind. And it is in this fact that we see the role of scents and colours.

Plants that are pollinated by animals often are brightly coloured and have a strong smell to attract the animal pollinators. These plants can also stagger the release of pollen to attract different types of animals at different times of the year.

Plants that are pollinated by wind often have long stamens and pistils. Since they do not need to attract animal pollinators, they can be dully coloured, unscented, and with small or no petals, since insects need not land on them.

So plants can be classified as sexy seductive plants that need animals and independent more homely plants that do not.

Some plants also have a need to distribute their seeds and for this they need to attract larger animals. To do this they offer a gift of fruit. The animal eats the fruit and defecates the seeds many metres or even kilometres away. In this way plants have created an efficient transportation system to maintain their reproduction.

An example of this interdependency is the demise of a tree known as Calvaria major in Mauritius. This tree produced a seed in a very hard casing, which could only be opened by passing through the gizzard of a Dodo bird.

When the Dodo became extinct, the trees rapidly diminished because of the difficulty to propagate because it’s animal partner did not exist anymore. Botanists have since found ways to propagate the seed using turkeys.

My position on the definition of intelligence is the ability live in harmony within an eco-system and the ability to adapt to changing conditions and to manipulate the environment to serve the best interest of the species. By this criteria plants are intelligent. They may not have a brain but they have a chemical and electrical system within their cells that responds to outside stimuli and adapts.

Animals eat plants but plants decide who will eat them. Some plants are toxic to some animals but not to others.

An apple tree gives an animal like us a gift of food. The animal then distributes the seed of the apple. But before it gives us the apple it produces flowers to attract a pollinator. Thus the bee is the pollinator and humans are transporters. In other words, both the bee and the human work for the plant and both are paid for their labour. The bee gets nectar and the human gets an apple.

Thus it is that the apple tree wants the apple to be eaten.

Earlier this month I ate a celery stalk. I took the base of that stalk and planted in in soil and now I have a new stalk of celery growing in the pot.

You can eat a plant and the plant will regrow. There is no animal anywhere that you can eat any part of it that will be beneficial to the animal being eaten.

Now it can be argued that a wolf contributes to the strength of the caribou species by eating the weak and the sick amongst the herd. There is a valid prey predator relationship that is beneficial to both the meat eating predator and the plant eating prey.

However humans have never been apart of this prey predator relationship because we do not strengthen the herd of another species by predation. Instead we tend to take the strongest and the healthiest animals through hunting and thus that contributes to weakening the herd.

It is true that domestic species have thrived in numbers although not in quality of life because of human intervention. The same holds true for plants. Unfortunately our cultivation practises have damaged diversity and replaced diversity with a smaller number of plants and animals that we now depend upon.

Humans have never been carnivores. Ancient hunting gathering societies were opportunistic scavenging societies. They existed on what opportunities presented themselves and the discovery and creation of weapons increased those opportunities to kill larger animals.

Carnivores gorge on organs and fat, often leaving muscle tissue to the scavengers like vultures and hyenas. Scavengers like dead meat and are mainly immune to the toxicity of decaying meat. A lion likes his meat fresh, hot and bloody. A hyena likes it to be semi rotten. Carnivores after eating require a great amount of water and many hours of sleep.

Humans meat eaters today are primarily necrovores. In other words, eaters of dead flesh and in our case the animals we eat can be dead from many days to many years.

I have been in meat markets in Brazil and in Senegal and other places and no Westerner that I know would eat the greyish green and blackish brown flesh that is usually covered with flies. We cover this up with a red dye made from crushed beetles and spray it with bleach to keep it from decay. The meat you see on most supermarket shelves is disguised from it’s natural appearance.

The bottom line however is this. You can’t describe 7.5 billion land dwelling hominids as hunters in a world of diminishing wildlife and devastated eco-systems.

Our species are more like locusts devouring everything in our path. Every year we kill and devour some 65 billion land animals and tens of billions of sea animals. We give nothing positive back. Instead we return toxins, plastic, and numerous forms of pollution.

If every Australian were to exercise their “right” to kill a kangaroo or every American their “right” to kill a deer, both species would be gone within a year. We are eating the world alive.

Meat production is the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, the leading cause of groundwater pollution, the leading cause of dead zones in the ocean, the leading cause of freshwater loss in the world, the leading cause of forest destruction in the world and the leading cause of many diseases.

And in response to this I get tossed the question of, “well plants feel pain also.” We are also told that vegans suffer health problems. I hear this but I have not seen it and I’ve lived with veganism for many years. My ships are vegan and my crews are healthy.

But where do you get your protein? From plants! Plants provide all the protein we require.

But where do you get B-12? B-12 deficiency is as much a problem for people who eat factory farmed meat as for vegan because the way that factory farmed animals are raised tends to deplete B-12 in their bodies. B-12 supplements are available but one of the primary causes for lack of B-12 is that for tens of thousands of years we ate dirt with our food and B-12 is readily found in soil. B-12 deficiency is a problem for everyone and not just vegans. Vegans are in fact healthier in many ways for taking B12 supplements than meat eaters who believe they are getting B-12 when they are not.

There are some who said that they were vegans or vegetarians but that their bodies needed meat and they were getting sick. Improper vegan diets will cause any problems that any improper diet will cause. The hormones, antibiotics, uric acid and heavy metals in meat and fish cause much more health issues than veganism. I know that people who eat meat like people who hunt tend to get fiercely defensive in response to the subject of veganism. They take the very existence of vegans as a personal affront to themselves. Some say this is because of deep-seated feelings of guilt. I see it as the natural response to an addiction.

For those who say it’s a life style choice all I can say is that the living, feeling, sentient beings that are eaten, it is not a choice for them. Slavery was once a life style choice but not for the slaves. There were people who chose to own slaves and those who chose not to and the slave owners were always quick to point out that it was traditional and a matter of personal choice.

Domestic animals have replaced wild animals. 50% of the biomass of wild species have been removed since 1950. Over 40% of all the fish and plankton taken from the sea is fed to pigs, chickens, domestic salmon, fur-bearing animals and house cats.

It takes 600 litres of water to produce a hamburger but Greenpeace advises us to take short showers to conserve water. They never advise not eating a hamburger. One hamburger represents two months of short showers. Six hamburgers represent a year’s worth of short showers.

Raising plants requires water also but much less. By replacing the plants cultivated for animal feed there would be more land to cultivate for plant production for humans. Presently more land is used to grow crops for non-human animals than for humans.

It does come down to numbers and human population escalation must be stopped. Unlimited growth defies the law of finite resources. We are presently stealing the carrying capacity of other species and as a result we are now in an era called the Anthropocene, the sixth mass extinction event in human history.

Human society will have to adapt to a sustainable vegan diet or our societies will collapse. Our present blind consumer society is killing the biosphere, killing the life support system of the planet.

But to many, that simply does not matter. The planet may just have to suffer because too many people just simply love their cheeseburgers more.

[attachmentid=5047017]

How Vegans Shove Their Opinions

icehart85 — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:10:19 +0800

A group of asshole vegans went to a steak house and ruined everyone's night by chanting about animal cruelty. Watch how everyone reacted. #DogMeatPlease

[YOUTUBE]WJzw7SeVnHI[/YOUTUBE]

Vegan Diet Danger Warning

icehart85 — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:59:49 +0800

OK after doing my own research from the internet and especially this guy, now I know vegan diet is really hoax.

Does not cure cancer and many people died from the diet of a lot of diseases. Just realized most ktards here really clever.

To those who said hahahhaa i told you so, yeah I apologize now I am making ammends for my protein deficiency. I dunno how much deficient I am thats why gotta stuff up on beef and steak.

[YOUTUBE]RAFK_u4kmks[/YOUTUBE]

How to Eat a Rabbit Like A Bawse

icehart85 — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:41:50 +0800

This is how a true carnivore or omnivore should eat their meat.

[YOUTUBE]J9CttW2F4fQ[/YOUTUBE]

Inb4 that canine is used for meat eating.

How Does Contraceptive Pill Work

icehart85 — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:22:36 +0800

Saw an earlier post about someone who wanna start steroid program.

The thing is contraception is female equivalent of steroids. Find out what are the risks when girls are taking pills everyday:

[YOUTUBE]L6pVJSDiGT0[/YOUTUBE]

Origins of the 'Hunter-Gatherer' Myth

icehart85 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:08:23 +0800

Are our ancestors really natural carnivores or omnivores as most /k here like to think?

New evidence gathered is now able to prove this theory once and for all.

Please watch the video if you wanna know the conclusions.

[YOUTUBE]8tUi36wW77A[/YOUTUBE]

6 Surefire Ways to Lose an Argument

icehart85 — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:04:35 +0800

Just a laugh. Wanna share this article here. No hating whatsoever. Just for fun.

QUOTE

6 Surefire Ways to Lose an Argument with a Vegan

Vegans.

Depending on which side you’re on, they’re either at the forefront of a more compassionate, sustainable, and just world, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses of animal causes. Making everyone angry by telling them what to eat and who not to kill. Always getting on their high horses, or at least walking alongside the ones they just rescued from being turned into hamburgers after the race track got through with them.

Everybody hates someone who’s telling them to stop doing something they enjoy, but if you’re going to argue against them, you’re still obliged to use reason and logic. With that in mind, here are six ways to lose an argument with a vegan.

1. Become an honorary lion

“Animals eat other animals. Are you going to stop the lion from eating the zebra?”

Right. As everyone knows, lions have the most advanced moral system on the planet. We should emulate them wherever possible. They eat other animal species, so we should too. They steal, rape, and murder within their own species, so we should too.

Wait. What did I just say?

Self-righteous lion who thinks he’s better than you

When we say things like “Animals eat other animals so it’s okay if we do it too,” we are making a logical error known as the naturalistic fallacy. Things found in nature are not always moral. Not even close. In fact, nature is a total fucking asshole. She may be all smiles and rainbows one second, but she will fuck you up the next. She will fuck you up worse than a guy named Dieter who’s trained in the art of genital electrocution. And she doesn’t need to catch you in bed with another person to make her decide to do it. She’s not something to hold up as moral.

If you point to what happens in nature as something to follow in life, what you’re actually saying is, “Hurray for prejudice, theft, rape, and murder!” You may think you’ve won the argument, but in reality, you’d have to work pretty damn hard to lose it worse.

2. Flash an omnivore badge

“Humans are omnivores! Look at my canine teeth!”

We evolved the ability to eat animals, so eating them is obviously what we should do. We also evolved the ability to make fists, so punching people in the face is obviously what we should do. Heck, some of our brains evolved the ability to blow up the world in a nuclear holocaust. It’s not something we should morally attempt to avoid despite having the ability to do it. It’s how we were designed, and so that determines how we should act. It’s not a choice. It’s a goddamn duty!

“Shut up, vegan, we were designed for this.”

If there’s a choice in the matter, where do we get this notion that we can simply flash an “I am an omnivore” badge and think we have a solid argument? Dude, it’s not a get out of morality free badge. Only cops shooting minorities seem to have one of those.

We really have got to stop pointing to our puny canine teeth already. It’s about as logically effective as a Bill Cosby pointing to his junk and saying he was designed by evolution to be a sexual opportunist, so that means he can stuff his Jello Pudding Pop wherever, whenever, however, and into whoever he damn well pleases.

3. Become a plants rights advocate

“Plants have feelings too!”

Silly vegans, everyone knows that plants are not only sentient, but just as sentient as any animal. Their starchy plant brains lead rich emotional lives and feel pain and pleasure from their sensitive green nervous systems. Now sure, raising and killing an animal means first killing many multiple times more plants to feed the animal, on top of killing the animal as well, but so what? Everyone knows that once you’re forced to kill to survive, you should intentionally kill as much as you can. Go big or go home, right people?

Plants actually don’t even have brains or nervous systems, so even though there are interesting news articles about how they can react to some stimuli, it’s still extremely doubtful that they’re consciously aware and subjectively feel pleasure and pain and other emotions the way humans and other sentient animals do. They are not Groot. But even if plants were as sentient as animals, it does take multiple times more plants to feed the animals we eat than it does to feed ourselves directly, which is why this argument fails on a number of levels.

Taking a position that you can intentionally kill as much as you want because you couldn’t avoid not killing at all, is about as logically effective as Lex Luthor telling Superman that the two of them are exactly the same because Superman had to reluctantly kill before and therefore is a killer too. It’s the kind of argument a normally smart person only makes when their stomach has dropped their IQ to the level of a plant.

4. Talk about food chains

“We’re at the top of the food chain.”

“My ancestors didn’t claw their way up the food chain so that I could be vegan!”

If this is to be understood correctly, apparently there was an epic long historical battle that humans won over the combined efforts of all the other animals, and that gives us, who did jack shit in the matter, the right to enjoy the spoils of war and do whatever we want to the vanquished animal species forever and ever? It’s simply a way of saying I’ll do what I want because I can, and might makes right.

Fast food chain: pink slime -> human

Can you imagine someone saying, “My ancestors didn’t claw their way up history so that I could be against slavery?” Or, “My ancestors didn’t become the dominant gender so that I could be against sexism?” No one in their right mind would say such things.

Oh wait, they actually did.

You see, there used to be a notion called The Great Chain of Being that specified a natural hierarchy set up by God, and people used it to argue that whites were higher up the hierarchy than non-whites, and men were higher up than women. The people spearheading this argument, by a sheer amazing coincidence, just happened to be white males. What are the odds!

Food chain arguments are similarly self-serving statements trying to justify our actions with respect to animals. In fact, we’re actually at the top of our food chain whether or not we’re vegan, because no one’s generally eating us, at least while we’re alive, regardless of what or who we eat. So, apparently, all we really want to do here is have some sort of dick measuring contest based on how big a body count of victims we can amass.

Might Makes Right is not a logically effective argument and reflects quite poorly on the person making it. It’s wise to avoid this type of argument, because our ancestors probably didn’t struggle to survive just so that we could remain uneducated a-holes talking about food chains.

5. Kill with kindness

No, really, it’s a good thing. It’s called humane. It’s what all the cool compassionate people are doing. I mean, it’s one thing to care about the level of mistreatment of a being while they’re alive, but why would anyone care about their actual life and death, or their current classification as commodities for humans? That’s just silly.

An awesome compassionate dude being all compassionate and stuff.

Like a good Justin Bieber song or a fully-clothed Miley Cyrus, the phrase humane animal products is an example of an oxymoron. The words just don’t really belong together. Sure, less violence is an improvement from more violence, but do we really think the word humane is some magical Harry Potter incantation that suddenly makes violence okay?

Humanus Meatus!

Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.

6. Yell “Bacon!”

Nothing proves that veganism is a religious cult more than if you stick your fingers in your ears and yell “Bacon!” over and over again. Better yet, tell those pesky vegans that for every animal they don’t eat, you’re going to eat two. Now you showed them who the free-thinking person is in the room. Stupid vegans and their religious cult. Anyway, everyone knows the one true <insert your favorite God here> put animals on Earth for humans.

Let’s consider this from both sides for a moment. First, suppose vegans are right that speciesism is a real thing and humans are unjustly prejudiced against other species in exploiting and oppressing and killing them for our own purposes. In that scenario, you’re showing a similar mindset as a slave owner going on about how much they enjoy slavery and saying they’re going to beat a slave in someone’s honor just because that someone spoke up against slavery. Not a pretty picture for yourself, even if Leonardo DiCaprio ends up playing you in the movie.

Now consider if vegans are wrong and are more like pro-life folks as seen from the perspective of a pro-choice person. In that scenario, you’re more like someone shouting, “Hurray for abortion!” and “I’m going to have an abortion just for you!” Who does that? Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you?

Taste doesn’t justify exploitation and violence, just as our other senses don’t justify it either, despite what any frat boy’s penis might think. But rather than trying to logically argue a position, the person here instead decided to shout, “Hurray for animal killing!” and “I’m going to kill more animals than I normally would just because you spoke up against it.” Such a person has more than lost the argument with this one. They’ve successfully auditioned themselves to star in Idiocracy 2.

There are plenty of legitimate conversations to have on the topics of animal rights and veganism. Let’s try to get past our provably faulty thinking on the matter and have them.

6 Surefire Ways to Lose an Argument with a Vegan

If White Rice is Linked to Diabetes

icehart85 — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:19:30 +0800

I hope this dispels the myth that sugars and rice makes you diabetic.

Please watch for more info.

[YOUTUBE]4aFxzAZdv7Y[/YOUTUBE]

Why Asian Girls So Skinny Eating White Rice?

icehart85 — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:59:10 +0800

Look at those skinny smexy girls

[YOUTUBE]DrpPFLsJFcI[/YOUTUBE]

"We Must be the Devil to the Animals"

icehart85 — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:23:10 +0800

I am really sad to watch videos like this. To think that this is happening as we speak is injustice.

I'm appealing to those with a heart to watch the video and hear the message.

Please also think about the issue. If it's not good for your eyes, maybe it's not good in your mouth.

[YOUTUBE]kdUMrVuB9HI[/YOUTUBE]

UN Says Veganism Can Save the World....

icehart85 — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:00:37 +0800

QUOTE

Veggie burgers may soon rule the land.

Can a vegan diet save the world? According to a new report from the UN, the answer is "yes." The Guardian writes that "a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty, and the worst impacts of climate change." The report notes that the Western preference for meat- and dairy-heavy diets is "unsustainable," especially as the population is expected to grow to 9.1 billion by 2050.

The report adds that "animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals." Plus, livestock raised for meat consumes a large portion of the world's crops and a lot of freshwater. Currently, agriculture, "particularly meat and dairy products," account for 70 percent of the world's freshwater consumption. It also accounts for 39 percent of the globe's total land use and 19 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Importantly, as the population grows, the impact from agriculture will substantially grow as well, thanks to the the increasing consumption of animal products. The report notes that "unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives." The only option is to cut down on the number of animal products consumed.

The UN isn't the only one advocating a more plant-focused diet. A couple from the United Kingdom are working hard to make "Veganuary" a global movement. The duo are trying to convince people to eat less animal products by going vegan for the month of January. According to a press release, 50 percent of last year's participants said that they "intended to remain vegan for good." Perhaps the UN just found a new partner in their global mission?

Article sos

UN Report

INB4 all meat eaters here in denial....accuse me of extremist. Oh wai......means UN is extremist???

MILK PRANK

icehart85 — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:50:31 +0800

[VIDEO]https://fbcdn-video-p-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xtp1/v/t42.1790-2/11353770_841774072542501_1286347922_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjc4NCwicmxhIjoxMDg1LCJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InJlc180MjZfY3JmXzIzX21haW5fMy4wX3NkIn0%3D&rl=784&vabr=436&oh=1cc832bb585c699b49e6131d1c4247a0&oe=55F0FB58&__gda__=1441856779_14aab713555e8586faeb5ae0301affbd[/VIDEO]

Watch the people's reaction when they realized what they really drinking.